> As far as concurrency is concerned you really need an incrementX() > operation -- else you can't assume you've synchronized on the right > thing or invoked the right atomic operation.
Exactly my point, foo.getX()+1 isn't enough, which is why we have i.e. AtomicLong. .NET is no different, you guarantee immutability with const while effective/observable immutability is a somewhat more complicated matter. So I don't see how mutability works as an argument against properties. /Casper --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
